Dalia al-Aqidi, the un-Omar
[Hat tip: John Hinderaker at Powerline.]
Ilhan Omar has a Republican challenger who’s tossed her hat into the ring. I don’t think Dalia al-Aqidi has any chance of taking this overwhelmingly Democratic district, but she’s certainly impressive (as well as equally attractive, which doesn’t hurt):
intelligence, precision, heart, courage, vision. she is a role model for all pols.
She appears sincere and, if so would be a fine replacement for Omar.
That said, it is not possible to be a devout Muslim and a loyal American. Moderate, ‘cafeteria’ Muslims suffer from a profound case of willful blindness. Perhaps when push comes to shove, she’ll cling to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
“A man cannot serve two masters…” a 1st century itinerant Israeli preacher.
There would be a primary challenger to Omar, if we weren’t living in the crazy years.
Jews recognized that parts of the Torah were only enforceable with God’s direct oversight. Perhaps Muslims have recognized the same qualifications of their religious/moral philosophy. That said, she is impressive, and, furthermore, seems to have assimilated and integrated an American conservative philosophy, culture, and ideology.
Minnesota elects some different candidates from time to time, perhaps Dalia actually has a chance of winning and that would be ever so nice.
n.n.,
Yes she does appear “to have assimilated and integrated an American conservative philosophy, culture and ideology.”
It would be interesting to learn how she squares that circle with Muhammad’s most fundamental claim: that the Qur’an is a direct and perfect transcription of Allah’s words, delivered in repeated visits by none other than the Archangel Gabriel.
Since fallible mankind is literally incapable of revising (correcting) infallible Allah… who in the ‘sacred’ Qur’an over a hundred times calls for violent subjugation of the infidel (by any means neccessary), proclaims apostasy to be punishable by death, etc.,etc.
How pray tell does she or any Muslim reconcile individual liberty and conscience with Islamic tenets? Especially as rejection of the claim that Allah is the Qur’an’s author leaves inescapable the conclusion that Muhammad was either a liar or deluded?
There are at least two Democrat challengers:
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/12/04/omar-gets-a-second-democratic-challenger-in-5th-district-race
There are Muslims in the US who do not accept the strict interpretation of the Qur’an and hadith. The idea is that the hate-filled bits were for the original time in which Muhammad lived in Arabia, and not for all times since. Their numbers are far fewer than they should be.
Omar represents the city of Saint Louis Park. It is a heavily Jewish neighbourhood. They voted for Omar and they can vote her out. They should vote her out for more than her views. She is corrupt and Minnesota can do better than her. Minnesotans also have a history of voting for both Democrats and Republicans. Example; Governor Dayton was a Democrat with a Republican legislator when Obama was on the ticket and easily won Minnesota. HRC won by less that 1 percent in 2016. Trump will be on the ticket and he is more popular in Minnesota than even 4 years ago.
We will see.
She looks pretty white to me, You know what they will say.
Kate,
Where in the Qur’an or in the hadiths does it proclaim that the violent commands were only for Muhammad’s time? To the best of my knowledge, which certainly isn’t comprehensive, those ‘qualifications’ don’t exist. In fact, some enjoin Muslims to continue to subdue the infidel until the whole world is Islamic. Arguably, those commands decisively undercut those Muslims who do not accept a strict interpretation of Islamic tenets. Finally, the universally accepted Islamic “Doctrine of Abrogation” resolves the contradiction between the earlier peaceful verses in the Qur’an in favor of the later violent commands.
This leads me to conclude that the devout fundamentalists hold the theological high ground. Which is why the ‘moderate’ Muslims are so often so very silent… even on anonymous internet boards.
Geoffrey Britain, of course those “moderate” ideas don’t occur in the Qur’an or hadith. The idea that the Qur’an is uncreated and eternal exactly as is solidified about a thousand years ago, and is indeed accepted by all the major Islamic jurisprudence branches. But there were Islamic thinkers in the early centuries who thought otherwise and were ruled heretical. If modern Muslims want to accept American principles and remain Muslim, they’re going to have to make an adjustment to deem the violent parts obsolete. That’s why there are so few of them, of course; it’s contrary to orthodox Islamic teaching and in many parts of the world can be very dangerous.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/17/iraqi-refugee-running-against-ilhan-ambassador-chris-stevens-benghazi/
Video only, no transcript
Kate,
The early Islamic thinkers who thought otherwise, in order to offer another interpretation have to reject Muhammad’s repeated claim that the Quran is a direct transcription of Allah’s testimony, transmitted by the archangel Gabriel.
As, verses directing Muslims to ‘subdue’ the infidel are far too frequent and specific to support a revised, peaceful interpretation.
But rejection of Muhammad’s claim as to the Qur’an’s authorship implicitly labels him to have either been a liar or deluded. In either case, Islamic theology collapses for it then has no theological foundation upon which to rest.
Which is why Islam, even after 1400 years has never reformed. Muhammad’s claim that the Qur’an is Allah’s direct testimony simply cannot be changed without rejecting Islam’s founder.
Just as Judaism’s claim that the Ten Commandments were written upon stone by God’s finger cannot be rejected without implicitly declaring Moses to have either been a liar or deluded.
There’s simply no ‘wiggle’ factor in either of those claims.
Geoffrey, we’d better hope that more and more Muslims who want to be modern people find that “wiggle room.” Al-Aqidi and others like her are the kind of Muslims we should be encouraging. If her new allegiance to the US Constitution is contrary to Islamic doctrine, that’s her problem, not ours. May her kind increase.
How pray tell does she or any Muslim reconcile individual liberty and conscience with Islamic tenets?
I don’t know. Perhaps she has discovered a way to reconcile. Perhaps her true character is kept in check by competing interests. Is it worth asking, or offer her the benefit of the doubt based on observable pattern of behavior? What is the risk profile here? Where do we draw a firm line?